October 2016

Sunday, September 06, 2015

My priest this morning, during his homily, referenced ABC 20/20's airing Friday night of Pope Francis and The Peopleand I was moved by his words, so moved in fact that I made the decision to watch the show for myself as soon as I could. I finished doing so just moments ago.

It was all that Father Mike had portrayed it to be and more. You should set out to watch it yourself. It'll enhance the faith of the faithful and should give food for thought to those who might consider themselves something other than faithful.

During a “townhall” styled meeting the pope singled the nun out before the crowd.

“I want to thank you,” Francis said. “And through you to thank all the sisters of religious orders in the U.S. for the work that you have done and that you do in the United States. It’s great. I congratulate you. Be courageous. Move forward.

And then the pope, 78, said something she could never have imagined: “I’ll tell you one other thing. Is it inappropriate for the Pope to say this? I love you all very much.“

ABC and multiple other news outlets presented this little scene as if the Pope just somehow happened to spot Pimentel on a TV monitor “hiding” in the crowd and that it was all a big, heartwarming surprise. But, it is obvious that this was an orchestrated event and not spontaneous at all. Francis set this up ahead of time in order to give the USA another jab in the ribs, something he has become well known for at this point.

If you've not watched the referenced segment on 20/20, you might be excused for the kind of attitude and cynicism on display here but, if you did indeed watch it and you continue to be this disdainful, it's an indication of a hardness of heart that Christ alone will have to pierce. To suggest that the Pope's singling out of this nun during the virtual audience was anything but spontaneous is to have watched a show I didn't see and seemingly, to make things up out of whole cloth. It's a baseless and shameful charge.

But no more baseless and shameful than Huston's attack against this faithful nun merely carrying out her vocation faithfully, lovingly and diligently.

Mr. Huston, and the stone-hearted who applaud his thinking, have indicted her because she dared to see Christ in the least of these, she dared to assist those fleeing their homelands and the infestation of gangs and violence therein, she dared to set aside politics, she dared to see their humanity, she dared to be Christ to them.

In other words, this nun acted out her faith, acted like her savior Jesus Christ, and in that acting, committed the cardinal sin of offending Huston's idol, political ideology. How dare she? Who does she think she is?

But wait, there's more that offended Mr. Huston's sensibilities, more that upset his applecart of ideological idolatry.

Mr. Huston was deeply offended by the Pope's plan to use his native tongue at the Mass to be held in DC during his U.S. visit later this month:

"... in order to scold the U.S.A. over its already too generous immigration policies, Francis is purposefully giving a Mass in Spanish despite that less than 15 percent of the United States even speaks the language.

...

Next Francis has decided to rub America’s nose in its immigration problems by giving his Papal Mass in Washington in Spanish instead of English.

This is a purely political move, one meant as a slam on one of the most generous nations on the planet, one that already ranks number one in the world in the sheer number of legal immigrants is allows in, not to mention illegal ones.

Certainly there is good reason for a religious leader to speak up in the USA–what with the Obama administration’s campaign to put an end to religious liberty and to destroy Christianity–but what is the red pope doing? He’s attacking Americans for wanting to have some control over their own immigration policy and essentially calling the whole country a bunch of racists.

Instead of being a religious leader, this pope is using his position to play anti-American politics.

This pope is a disaster."

Incredible.

By speaking Spanish, the man's native tongue, the Pope according to Huston is rubbing America's nose in its immigration policies, scolding the U.S.A., slamming America, attacking America, calling Americans racists and playing anti-American political games.

By. Speaking. Spanish.

His. Native. Tongue.

With all due respect to Mr. Huston and those who find his writing fruitful and productive, his thinking on this is banal and infantile, beyond comprehension for those who think rationally.

To read the sort of mindlessness referenced into the circumstance of a nun living out her faith and the rather natural act of a Pope speaking in his native tongue, is to stretch the limits of credulity.

Friday, February 06, 2015

1. There’s the deflection in the first sentence. Williams seems to be saying: “I was only trying to do something good, but something bad happened instead.” He returns to the theme of saluting veterans and honoring their service later. But really: he is on the record as recounting this same story multiple times over the last decade.This isn’t the first instance. To pretend that is, and that he was only trying to help other people, is galling.

2. Fully half of the statement is not about what he did wrong, but what others did right – again, deflection as if to say, “Let’s talk about something else here.” He goes on about the brave men and women who served. He offers a bid for some sympathy by alluding to the “two harrowing nights” in a sandstorm after. (Translation: “I may not have been shot at, but it was no picnic, folks.”) But he has really very little to say about the fiction he perpetrated numerous times over the years.

After all Barack has done in office, and after all you have done to build this campaign, we can't afford to watch everything slip away on Election Night.

But the other side has out-raised us-our opponents have $45 million more than we do for the Final Stretch.... And none of us has ever seen what a barrage of money like that will do.That's why we need to do everything we can in the last days, and why we still need your support.

And, until, tomorrow night, any donation you make will automatically enter you to meet Barack on Election Night!

We can either give it our all in these final days, or wake up on November 7th wishing we'd done a little more. Don't wait!

Supporting this campaign once more will move us closer to victory, and enter you to win a trip to join Barack on Election Night.

Thanks, Michelle

Now from Romney -

Tonight, Ann and I are keeping the people in Hurricane Sandy's path in our thoughts and prayers.

I hope that if you can, you will reach out to your neighbors who may need help getting ready for the storm-especially your elderly neighbors.

And if you can give of your resources or time, please consider supporting your local Red Cross organization - visit www.redcross.org to get involved.

For safety's sake, as you and your family prepare for the storm, please be sure to bring any yard signs inside. In high winds, they can be dangerous and cause damage to homes and property.

Stay safe and God bless,

Mitt Romney

One wants your money, the other wants you to be safe and give to the Red Cross. Yeah, tough choice on election day.

Now here’s (my) Governor of NY State, Andrew Cuomo, making a ridiculous statement that either hints at global warming and or is political cover to use for even more delays on allowing fracking in NY. (Full Video, NBC News)

“We have to come to the realization that we are dealing with extreme weather patterns that we haven’t seen...probably ever.”

Over to Bubba who just can’t help himself and tries to slam Romney by suggesting Pres. Obama would be better at combating (the fallacy of) climate change.

Mayor Thomas M. Menino is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from bringing its Southern-fried fast-food empire to Boston — possibly to a popular tourist spot just steps from the Freedom Trail — after the family-owned firm’s president suggested gay marriage is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.”

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,” Menino told the Herald yesterday.

“That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”

So to reiterate from yesterday, all the president of Chik-fil-A did was defend the traditional understanding and definition of marriage, he never mentioned gays or gay marriage. From the linked interview in that piece, the president's own words deemed controversial by so many are actually quite innocuous:

Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said [Dan] Cathy when asked about the company's position.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

For those words, the man and the business are being pummelled? Seriously?

What this shows is that the mayor of Boston is misinformed at best or worse, and more likely, an opportunist who thinks inroads can be made here to further an agenda and to pander to those fomenting that agenda.

Here's to the hope that this backfires in the mayor's face and severely.

When I've heard the phrase in the past, I've always understood it to mean core or main or central to a concept... that the fabric of something is what that something is made of, that without that something, either the substance is changed entirely or not made at all.

On behalf of the American people, Michelle and I extend our warmest wishes to Muslim Americans and Muslims around the world at the start of Ramadan.

For Muslims, Ramadan is a time of fasting, prayer, and reflection; a time of joy and celebration. It’s a time to cherish family, friends, and neighbors, and to help those in need.

This year, Ramadan holds special meaning for those citizens in the Middle East and North Africa who are courageously achieving democracy and self-determination and for those who are still struggling to achieve their universal rights.

The United States continues to stand with those who seek the chance to decide their own destiny, to live free from fear and violence, and to practice their faith freely. Here in the United States, Ramadan reminds us that Islam is part of the fabric of our Nation, and that—from public service to business, from healthcare and science to the arts—Muslim Americans help strengthen our country and enrich our lives.

Lex Communis atempts to make sense of this while asking tough questions:

If the idea is that Muslims are equal citizens in the United States, then it is fair to say that Muslims are part of the fabric of our nation. Presumably, insofar as Muslims are part of the fabric of our nation, then the faith they hold is part of that fabric.

But is Islam qua Islam a part of the fabric of the nation? Well, obviously not. Islam has played no part in the shaping of the institutions and culture of this attitude, and to the extent that Obama means to imply that it does, he's simply pandering.

A further thought, though, is what happened to Obama's approach to role of religion in the public square? Has he ever identified Christianity as part of the "fabric of our nation"? His approach to Catholicism clearly distinguishes between the faith of Catholics - which gets no special recognition from him - and Catholics as part of the fungible mix of deracinated people without any particular commitment to anything in particular.

Bottom line, Obama is awfully solicitious of Muslims.

It is interesting how Obama goes out of his way to be gracious and open to Muslims while seemingly going out of his way to isolate and alienate Catholics.

Friday, June 15, 2012

President Obama was interrupted by Neil Munro of The Daily Caller today during a White House presser announcing the administration's politically motivated decision to grant amnesty to a large number of illegal immigrants.

“I always go to the White House prepared with questions for our president. I timed the question believing the president was closing his remarks, because naturally I have no intention of interrupting the President of the United States. I know he rarely takes questions before walking away from the podium. When I asked the question as he finished his speech, he turned his back on the many reporters, and walked away while I and at least one other reporter asked questions.”

Diane Sawyer, who co-anchored ABC’s live coverage of the presidential statement, said afterward that Mr. Munro, despite his White House credentials, was “clearly considered a heckler.”

...

Paul Brandus, a White House reporter who posts to the Twitter account West Wing Reports, wrote that it was “an extraordinary exchange.” He wrote that Mr. Munro was wearing a temporary press credential, not a permanent one.

“Essential to ask all presidents questions. Sometimes we have to raise our voices as they walk away. But let him finish his remarks,” Mr. Brandus wrote on Twitter after the exchange, calling Mr. Munro’s behavior “boorish.”

Mr. Munro will, I'm certain, be deemed to be persona-non-grata post haste by Obama and his minions but given what this administration has done today, completely circumventing Congress doing so purely for political reasons, I say Munro's actions are warranted.

Tucker Carlson, Editor-in-Chief: “I don’t remember Diane Sawyer scolding her colleague Sam Donaldson for heckling President Reagan. And she shouldn’t have. A reporter’s job is to ask questions and get answers. Our job is to find out what the federal government is up to. Politicians often don’t want to tell us. A good reporter gets the story. We’re proud of Neil Munro.”

Neil Patel, Publisher: “The President today announced a very controversial policy and does not want to answer tough questions about it. Neil Munro is a veteran Washington reporter who today tried his best to time his question to be first as the President was wrapping up his remarks. He in no way meant to heckle the President of the United States.”

Clearly, this President thinks he's King Obama... and too many of his psycophants in the media, most of whom are covering for him anyway, think the same.

Monday, March 12, 2012

Before getting a prescription for Viagra or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency, if state Sen. Nina Turner has her way.

The Cleveland Democrat introduced Senate Bill 307 this week.

A critic of efforts to restrict abortion and contraception for women, Turner says she is concerned about men’s reproductive health. Turner’s bill joins a trend of female lawmakers submitting bills regulating men’s health. Turner said if state policymakers want to legislate women’s health choices through measures such as House Bill 125, known as the “Heartbeat bill,” they should also be able to legislate men’s reproductive health. Ohio anti-abortion advocates say the two can’t be compared.

Heartbeat bill sponsor Rep. Lynn Wachtmann, R-Napoleon, said comparing his bill to Turner’s would be like comparing apples to bananas. The Heartbeat bill would prohibit abortion once a heartbeat is detected, as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

“I understand some women think my bill is a personal affront,” Wachtmann said. “Protecting the unborn — to compare this to Viagra is not even related.”

Under Senate Bill 307, men taking the drugs would continue to be tested for heart problems, receive counseling about possible side effects and receive information about “pursuing celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice.”

“Even the FDA recommends that doctors make sure that assessments are taken that target the nature of the symptoms, whether it’s physical or psychological,” Turner said. “I certainly want to stand up for men’s health and take this seriously and legislate it the same way mostly men say they want to legislate a woman’s womb.”

The piece goes on to report the number of abortion related bills passed nationally in 2011 (92) and how only 25% of state legislators are women nationwide, only 23% in Ohio.

A day after he called for an end to perpetual political confrontation, President Barack Obama and his deputies publicly snubbed Arizona’s Republican governor when she welcomed him at the Pheonix airport.

Gov. Jan Brewer met him at first stop of his five-state campaign swing with a hand-written letter asking him to visit the state’s southern border, which is a hotbed of illegal immigration and drug trafficking.

But Obama suddenly turned cold, claiming that her Nov. 2011 book mischaracterized their previous White House meeting in June 2010. He then quickly walked away.

Shortly after, Obama’s press aides released a statement claiming Obama said she “inaccurately described the meeting.” The three-sentence statement ended curtly, saying that “the President looks forward to continuing taking steps to help Arizona’s economy grow.”

...

Obama visited Arizona as part of his re-election campaign. His campaign officials say he may be able to win the state in 2012 because of the state’s growing Hispanic population.

The president’s decision to snub Brewer may help him spur Hispanic support, partly because Brewer championed the state’s immigration reform law. In 2010, polls showed the law was supported by more than 70 percent of Arizonans, but only by a quarter of Hispanics.

Since then, the law has been loudly slammed by Obama’s lawyers at the Department of Justice and their allied Hispanic ethnic lobbies, immigration law groups, and various progressive groups.

Obama’s curt treatment of Brewer came the day after he used his State of the Union speech to call for a reduction in partisan rancor.

Better government can’t “happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town.” he declared. “We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common-sense ideas.”

Brewer’s book is titled “Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America’s Border.”

In the book, she described Obama as patronizing during their 2010 meeting when she asked for his help in curbing illegal immigration. His reaction, she wrote, “was though President Obama thought he could lecture me, and I would learn at his knee.”

At the airport, Obama said he “didn’t feel that I had treated him cordially. I said I was sorry he felt that way but I didn’t get my sentence finished” before he walked away, Brewer said.

“He was a little thin-skinned,” Brewer said during an later interview on a local radio station, News/Talk 92.3 KTAR. “I was a bit taken aback by his stance and his attitude” on the tarmac, she said, adding that Obama walked away from her “[as] I was trying to make a point that I thought that my book was right and correct.”

Monday, January 23, 2012

Obama’s proclamation was not widely noted, except in circles that take (as Scott put it long ago) the sacramental view of abortion. But I happened to read it, and was struck by this brazen bit of Obama BS:

As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.

If that doesn’t provoke hollow laughter, you haven’t been paying attention. Do President Obama and his fellow Democrats seriously believe that “government should not intrude on private family matters?” Let us count the ways! First, compare Obama’s declaration today with what he said when Michelle Obama announced her anti-childhood obesity project. Did you think that how much your kids weigh is a “private family matter,” in which “government should not intrude?” Don’t be silly:

I have set a goal to solve the problem of childhood obesity within a generation so that children born today will reach adulthood at a healthy weight. The first lady will lead a national public awareness effort to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity. She will encourage involvement by actors from every sector — the public, nonprofits, and private sectors, as well as parents and youth — to help support and amplify the work of the federal government in improving the health of our children.

So the future weight of your minor children is a “goal” of the federal government. Of course, that is just one example out of many. For example, do you think it is a “private family matter” whether you feed your children Cheerios and corn flakes for breakfast? Think again.

Is it an imposition on “private family matters” when a pediatrician cross-examines your child about whether you own a gun? The liberals don’t think so.

You might be so silly as to believe that teaching your children about sex is a “private family matter.” I won’t even bother to provide a link for this one.

The subject of Obama’s declaration was abortion. But suppose your teenage daughter can get an abortion without your even finding out about it: is that a government intrusion on “private family matters?” Sure, but one that liberals like Obama favor.

In Obama’s world, our daughter’s happiness depends upon having these options at their disposal, literally and figuratively. Because love, and the sneaky way it has of showing up whenever a baby is born and then complicating everything, (because it is meaningful and real) is an insufficient vehicle for the fulfillment of women, and their self-actualization.

Arise, daughters of America, and build your dreams upon the slaughter of your progeny;some say the fullness of our humanity was built upon the flesh and blood of one woman who said “yes” to a daunting and difficult proposal, but I say your fulfillment, your dreams and your future are better built upon the garbage heaps of “no” we’ve encouraged you to form out of your own flesh-and-blood in the empty landfills of government compassion, hope and change.

Because “yes we can,” is all about the hope and change that’s built on our emphatic “noes”. No, to life. No, to conscience. No, to compassion that is not mandated. No, to assistance givenby any but government. No, to any power greater than ourselves and our glorious government.

Listen, you can choose to support whomever you want. It's what America is known for.

Freedom.

But as a Catholic who has somewhat recently re-embraced the faith of his childhood, as someone who has decided to return but not first without checking (hopefully thoughtfully) on what Catholics believe and what tenets of the faith to adhere to as best I can, I'm shaking my head.

It's next to impossible to understand how a Catholic could remain in support of someone who... well... speaks as cunningly as Moloch.

It simply does not compute.

Perhaps one of you Catholic Moloch supporters could leave a comment and enlighten me.

Monday, November 14, 2011

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Sunday that he was looking at exporting more oil to China after the United States delayed a decision on a controversial pipeline.President Barack Obama's administration last week put off a decision on Keystone XL project after a major protest campaign by environmentalists, who say the pipeline would be prone to accidents and worsen climate change.

The conservative Canadian leader, taking part in a summit in Hawaii hosted by Obama said the pipeline decision had produced "extremely negative reactions" and that he discussed oil exports with Chinese President Hu Jintao.

"This does underscore the necessity of Canada making sure that we are able to access Asian markets for our energy products," Harper told reporters. "I indicated that yesterday (Saturday) to President Hu of China."

The Harper government has pressed Obama to approve the 1,700-mile (2,700-kilometer) pipeline extension, which would stretch through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma before ending up in Texas.

Canada, the pipeline's lead company TransCanada, and Obama's Republican opponents say the $7 billion project would provide the United States with a stable source of energy from an ally and create thousands of jobs.

"I remain optimistic that the project will eventually go ahead because it makes eminent sense," Harper said.

"This project is obviously what's in the best interest not just of the Canadian economy but also of the American economy," he said.

Why would this President do anything that would be in the best interest of the American economy?